Delhi High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Ms Chennai Elevated Tollways Limited on 30 January, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~3 (Part-heard)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 30.01.2025
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 309/2022
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. G. Suresh, applicant in person.
versus
MS CHENNAI ELEVATED TOLLWAYS LIMITED ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Parekh, Ms. Smita
Bhargava, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj and
Mr. Jayant Bajaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)
I.A. 2566/2025 (Condonation of delay in filing the review application)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
2. Consequently, the delay of 17 days in filing the review application
stands condoned.
I.A. 2567/2025 (Condonation of delay in re-filing the review application)
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. Consequently, the delay of 30 days in re-filing the review application
stands condoned.
REVIEW PET. 46/2025 (Review of the order dated 16.10.2024)
5. This review application is filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1, read with
Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, (hereinafter 'CPC') by the
applicant, Mr. G. Suresh, seeking reconsideration of the order dated
16.10.2024, passed by this Court.
6. The applicant, Mr. G. Suresh, had filed two impleadment applications,
I.A. 34691/2024 in O.M.P. (COMM) 309/2022 and Ex.Appl. (OS)
1108/2024 in O.M.P. (ENF.) (COMM) 133/2022, seeking to implead
himself in the ongoing proceedings. This Court, vide its order dated
16.10.2024, dismissed these applications by observing as under -
"1. These are applications filed by Mr. G. Suresh, who seeks to implead
himself in the present proceedings. The said individual is not a party to
the arbitration and has no connection with any of the parties to the
disputes.
2. He seeks to implead himself solely on the grounds of being 'familiar
with the project.'
3. In these proceedings, it is neither feasible nor permissible to implead a
non-party such as the applicant.
4. Consequently, the applications are dismissed."
7. The applicant has now filed this review application, seeking
reconsideration of the aforementioned order. The applicant argues that his
impleadment is essential, as he possesses critical and relevant facts that
directly relate to the arbitral award and the underlying project.
8. The applicant contends that these facts were not brought to light by
the parties involved in the case, despite their significant relevance to the
Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(hereinafter 'the A&C Act').
9. The applicant submits that he seeks impleadment in the present case
in order to highlight the patent illegalities, violations of the contractual
provisions, and evident bias in the arbitral award.
10. To support his impleadment application, the applicant has placed
reliance on Mr. Ajayan vs. State of Kerala & Ors, 2024 INSC 881.
11. After hearing the contentions of the applicant at length, this Court is
not inclined to allow the present review application. The applicant has failed
to establish any connection with the arbitration proceedings or the
underlying arbitration agreement in the main matter.
12. It is undisputed that the applicant is neither a signatory to the
arbitration agreement nor a party to the arbitration proceedings. In fact, the
applicant has no direct or indirect relationship with any of the parties
involved in the main dispute.
13. The applicant's claim that the parties to the proceedings have not fully
presented the correct facts before the Court does not justify his impleadment
in this case. The applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. In
Indusind Bank Ltd. v. Ram Laxman Hotels Ltd and Others, 2009 SCC
OnLine Del 1938, this Court addressed the issue as to whether a third party,
not involved in the arbitration agreement or proceedings, could file a
petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act, challenging an arbitral award
affecting the third party. The Court, therein, observed as under -
"7. Though from averments on record, grave doubt is cast with respect to
the respondent No. 3 ADR Arbitral Tribunal but there is a technical
objection to the maintainability of this petition. The petition under
Section 34 of the Act can be preferred only by a party to the arbitration
proceedings and not by a third party. The Chief Justice A.P. Shah of this
Court sitting in the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Chennai
Container Terminal Pvt Ltd. v. UOI, AIR 2007 Mad 325 has held that
Section 34 read with the definition of party in Section 2(1)(h) of the Act
makes it amply clear that only a party to the arbitration agreement can
invoke the provisions of Section 34 of the Act; a third party has no locus
standi to challenge the award under Section 34 of the Act. Similarly, a
Single Judge of this court also in Florentine Estates of India
Ltd. v. CREF Finance Ltd., (2004) 110 DLT 742 held to the same effect.
In view of the said legal position, the petition under Section 34 of the Act
by the petitioner who is admittedly not a party to the arbitration
proceedings is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. As such, a non-party to the arbitral proceedings cannot be allowed to
be impleaded in the Section 34 proceedings.
15. The observations made by the Court in Mr. Ajayan v. State of Kerala
& Ors. (Supra) do not support the applicant's case. The Court in that
judgment held that while Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code
imposes restrictions on the initiation of proceedings, it allows third parties
who have a bona fide connection to the matter (despite not being directly
involved in the original proceedings) to challenge decisions that affect them.
However, the observations in the said case pertain specifically to criminal
proceedings and cannot be ipso facto made applicable to the present
proceedings.
16. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the applicant's
prayer for impleadment and for review of the order dated 16.10.2024. The
review petition is consequently dismissed.
SACHIN DATTA, J
JANUARY 30, 2025/sv
